rhino_distance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important 'Euclidean' metric qualifier but does not disclose behavior such as whether coordinates are treated as document units or what unit the returned distance uses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple utility tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-point distance tool, the description combined with the annotations and output schema is mostly sufficient. It could be more complete with explicit mention of document units or a note distinguishing it from curve-length tools, but the core calling context is clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented top-level args parameter. It only says 'two points' and does not explain point_a, point_b, doc_id, or how the Point3dModel fields map to the calculation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the operation: compute Euclidean distance between two points. It is not a tautology and the noun phrase is specific enough to distinguish it from curve-length or area tools, though it does not name an alternative or use an explicit verb like 'compute' or 'return'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'between two points' implies when this tool is appropriate: when the user needs a distance between coordinate points. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools like rhino_length, rhino_curve_length, or rhino_cmd_distance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.